Here is an update on the soldier who refused to go!

[Eddo36]

It takes cogs to make any machine work. You kill somebody with a knife, is it the knife that gets punished?

 

And remember, the best defense is always a good offense.

Edited February 10, 2007 by Eddo36

[alanschu]

Thanks coach.

[Walsingham]

So a US serviceman serving in Hawaii is actually guilty of torturing people in Abu Ghraib? i'd argue that in fact the average citizen is more guilty of Abu Ghraib because unlike the servicemen they had free reign to object and enquire.

 

Collective punishment is outlawed in the Geneva convention as an abuse of human rights. I would suggest that logically the concept of mass guilt must be wrong as well.

[Guard Dog]

So whatever the government decides is right is right. Slavery, internment of Japanese, genocide and taking lands away from Native Americans, the government is never wrong. Especially in affairs on the rest of the world that the US government has no jurisdiction of and condemned by the rest of the world.

 

Do your job and follow. You are part of that system. Otherwise, you're wrong and therefore take punishment the governement gives you for it.

You know better than that. But, whatever the Congress authorizes, the President signs, and the Supreme Court does not object is legal if not right. For example, I think the Mcain-Feingold bill is an unforgivable tresspass on the first amendment but it has already been passed, signed and survived a legal challenge. I don't think it is right but it is certainly legal.

[Sand]

If it is not right, then it is not right. What is right overrides what is legal in my book.

[Calax]

So a US serviceman serving in Hawaii is actually guilty of torturing people in Abu Ghraib? i'd argue that in fact the average citizen is more guilty of Abu Ghraib because unlike the servicemen they had free reign to object and enquire.

but... but... that would have emboldened the terrorists!

 

Seriously... the american people as individuals have very little power, and often getting people to believe somthing like Abu Ghraib is happening could be very very difficult unless you are a very good journalist.

[Sand]

When the story about Abu Ghraib broke out it didn't surprise me in the least. In fact I was expecting it. Who do I blame for Abu Ghraib? George W. Bush and his administration.

Edited February 11, 2007 by Sand

[Tale]

When the story about Abu Ghraib broke out it didn't surprise me in the least. In fact I was expecting it. Who do I blame for Abu Ghraib? George W. Bush and his administration.

I blame you, Sand. If you suspected it was going on, it was your moral obligation to do something. -.-

[Sand]

I am just one person in the middle of Iowa. I can't do jack and sh*t. Only those who are in power can do anything and well, those in power are the problem.

 

Tell me, Tale, what can you do to change the policy on Iraq? Absolutely nothing.

Edited February 11, 2007 by Sand

[Tale]

I am just one person in the middle of Iowa. I can't do jack and sh*t. Only those who are in power can do anything and well, those in power are the problem.

 

Tell me, Tale, what can you do to change the policy on Iraq? Absolutely nothing.

Of course you can't do anything with that attitude.

[Sand]

What attitude? It is the truth. Even going to vote is a meaningless gesture. The 2000 election proved that.

Edited February 11, 2007 by Sand

[Dark_Raven]

Abu Ghraib a made up story by the media. Our fine boys and girls in the military would never do such a thing, if such a thing existed.

[Guard Dog]

The dems have been in power for over a month now. Rather than pull the plug on the war (cut funding) they are bickering about how big their private airplanes should be. I've said it before the only thing I find more distasteful than a republican is a democrat. And there is scant little difference between the two.

[DeathScepter]

Most of the Media is bull**** anyways. But I do believe there are a few honest journalists out there.

[Tale]

GG party politics.

[Calax]

I am just one person in the middle of Iowa. I can't do jack and sh*t. Only those who are in power can do anything and well, those in power are the problem.

 

Tell me, Tale, what can you do to change the policy on Iraq? Absolutely nothing.

Of course you can't do anything with that attitude.

really? he'd be able to actually get near the person he is supposed to be represented by in Washington? When did the rules change so that you can get within earshot of a delegate and not be either A) in a massive mob or B) get mobbed by security personell and "questioned"?

 

Voting is shot because politics right now figure that everyone except the extremists will vote the same friggin way they always do, thus the parties ONLY cater to the extreme right and left then try to reconsile what those groups need with a little common sense.

 

Representative Democracy is a failure. Party Politics is a failure... I say we go revolt until either we get an honest to god "mob rule" or somthing that doesn't cater to the "outsiders" of the group.

[Walsingham]

Most journalists are honest. They are also very very very lazy. They tell you the truth as they see it. They just don't bother looking very hard for the other more factually related truths that are out there. I'm a particular fan of op ed pieces aboiut warfare written by journalists who've never seen so much as a bar fight.

 

And Sand, you ARE shaping Iraq policy. Every person here has within them massive potential for good or evil. To take one example, your criticisms could dissuade someone reading from joining the US Army. You just deprived the Army of a soldier at a time when they need them. Conversely you could annoy someone so much that they DO join up. You could send or withold letters of support to your troops out there.

[Sand]

If I could dissuade someone from joining the military then that would be great. I have no problem in fighting for a cause that is just. The invasion of Afganistan was just because al Qaeda and the Taliban attacked us first. The Iraqi invasion was not because they had no WMDs, no ties to al Qaeda, and ultimately no threat to the U.S.. Now Bushie is trying to rattle the sabre against Iran claiming that they are supplying arms to Iraqi insurgents. Its more than likely more falsified reports to justify a chance to invade that country to.

[Calax]

For want of a nail a shoe was lost

For want of a shoe the horse was lost

For want of a horse the Knight was lost

For want of a Knight the battle was lost

For want of a battle the kingdom was lost

And so it is that a kingdom fell all for want of a nail.

 

Seems both appropriate and horribly out of place at the same time here.

[Walsingham]

If I could dissuade someone from joining the military then that would be great. I have no problem in fighting for a cause that is just. The invasion of Afganistan was just because al Qaeda and the Taliban attacked us first. The Iraqi invasion was not because they had no WMDs, no ties to al Qaeda, and ultimately no threat to the U.S.. Now Bushie is trying to rattle the sabre against Iran claiming that they are supplying arms to Iraqi insurgents. Its more than likely more falsified reports to justify a chance to invade that country to.

 

Sando, this is precisely what frustrates me. You either have a high quality defence force or you don't. You can't turn it on and off like a switch. If you think there are occasions on which you do need to fight then you'd better convince everyone of high calibre to sign up. Because it's no good expecting to ramp it up on the fly.

 

The 'problems' you mention (which are clearly debateable, but valid in concept) are the responsibility of those to whom the executive is responsible. i.e. the voting public. The argument that in teh US your votes count for nothing seems rather undermined by the tiny margin your president was elected on in the first place. We have by-elections here decided by the equivalent. I'm not suggesting a democrat would be terrifically different, but I hope you're not suggesting they would be identical.

[Sand]

The problem is that the popular vote is meaningless in a presidential election. We have this archaic institution in place called the Electorial College. They choose the president, not the regular citizens on the street. If we, the actual peoplem chose our president we would have had Al Gore in the 2000 elections. The voting public is irrelevant here in the US when it comes to presidents.

[alanschu]

The voting public is irrelevant here in the US when it comes to presidents.

 

 

Does the electoral college not typically place their votes based on the popular vote of their state?

Edited February 15, 2007 by alanschu

[Nartwak]

Have you been told today that you're an exceptionally stupid and short-sighted person, Hades?

[alanschu]

Typically, yes. Are they required to? Not in Iowa.

 

I would be very happy if we get rid of the electorial college. Until then the popular vote is meaningless.

 

 

Did Iowa's members of the Electoral College not place their votes in line with the popular vote of the state of Iowa?

[Sand]

I think I answered that question already, Alan.

 

Until the Electorial College is removed the popular vote is meaningless, that is the bottom line. The popular vote needs to determine this country's leadership, not a small group of selected few.